This is what bothers me the most .... heavily altering an image. As photographers I believe we should strive to make the best and most compelling photograph that we can, and if there's fence in the scene, then we should try to use it as a compositional element, to stretch our creativity and skill. Just erasing it from existence is an easy solution which is not, IMO, photography. It's Photoshop - and it ultimately relieves the photographer of the "burden" of having to be creative with a difficult or troublesome element in a scene.
I think it was Bob Sullivan who mentioned that at GFM someone was showing a group how easy it was to add a nice blue sky to a scene that "unfortunately" had a grey, overcast sky. Is that what nature photography has come to? Perhaps a better - certainly a more creative - approach is to use the sky as is as an element in the scene, and utilize one's skill as a "master manipulator of light" to make a strong photograph rather than our skills as pixel pushers to Photoshop an image. At what point do we stop? At what point and with what type of photos is there too much manipulation, where the photograph becomes something else. What's the point of a photographer waiting for the right light when s/he can make the adjustments in Photoshop. Why should I go back several times to make a photo of a mural or a piece of art work when instead I can just clone out a pesky background, or erase a distracting element? What happens to one's skill and ability to see an good photograph if the image is going to manipulated to make it what the photographer wants it to be instead of working with what it is? Use technology to make great photographs, don't abuse it in order to create images that only exist on a layer in Photoshop. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Tom Reese > > Paul Stenquist replied to me as follows: > > "Clone out the fence if it makes the photo better. Doesn't bother me in > the least. The objective is to make as nice a picture as possible." > > In my opinion, it's a doctored image and is no longer a photograph. It's > a deception and a fake. I know it's done all the time but, again IMO, > it's not fair to deceive the viewer. > > "Sometimes you can move the camera to get rid of the fence. Sometimes > you have to move the cursor. Doesn't matter. Why is the mere recording > of what happens to be in front of one sacred?" > > It's sacred unless you're up front about what you did. Otherwise the > image is a fake and the person who is presenting it is a fraud. > > "What should be sacred is keeping one's eye on the final objective: a > great photograph." > > What should be sacred is truth. Show your doctored images by all means > but warn the viewer that they aren't real. > > "From here on out Photography is going to involve a digital workflow > that will open the door to more creativity." > > It opens the door to deceit unless the presenter is honest about what he > did. > > "The work is ultimately judged on the basis of where you end up, not how > you got there. The image is the thing. The method is unimportant." > > If you present the image as art then I agree with you. If you present it > as reality then you are being dishonest. > > Tom Reese
